Going to another planet will not help with that. Pretty much no matter what happens on Earth, it will still be orders of magnitude easier to live here than in another planet.
I hate this argument. There is no foreseeable disaster that would make Earth less habitable than any other solar system body. Even if every nuke we have was detonated, it would still be orders of magnitude easier to survive on what remains of Earth than to live in Mars.
I'm not saying there are no existential risks at all, but being on other planets would not make us any more likely to survive to them than to simply being very well isolated on Earth (which would cost 1000x less).
Developing space technology already has all sorts of benefits and it doesn't need this poor argument in its favor.
Good point. By this logic, evolution is more about creating the best architecture, which I think is also a good analogy. But I also think that a lot of the brain's "weights" are pretty much set before any experience (maybe less so in humans, but several animals are born pretty much ready, even ones with complex brains, like whales), the genome information is, in a sense, very compressed, so even if isn't setting individual weights, it does determine the weights somehow, I think.
Does anyone know if anyone has investigated these questions more seriously elsewhere?
The human equivalent to GPT-3 training is not as much the learning one has in a lifetime, but the millions of years evolution process. "Normal" human learning is more akin to finetunning I think, although these analogies are flawed anyway.